FROM the EDITORS:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

The only situations in which anyone ever has the right intentionally to kill anyone are the just war, capital punishment, and a justified rebellion (or what the Catechism calls "armed resistance to oppression by political authority" (N. 2243, emphasis in Catechism). The just war and capital punishment are decreed by the state, which derives its authority from God. Armed rebellion involves an assumption by private persons of that authority of the state. The death penalty is inflicted on a person judged guilty of a capital crime and a just war or justified rebellion is subject to the mandate of noncombatant immunity, which forbids the direct and intentional killing of innocent noncombatants. See the Catechism, NN. 2312-2314. Whether in a just war or any other circumstance, no one ever has the moral right intentionally and directly to kill an innocent human being.

In self-defense or defense of others, against an aggressor, the intent must be to defend, rather than to kill. Consider two situations. In the first, Able, an abortionist's assistant in the killing room, suddenly has a change of heart moments before the abortion begins. He has a right and even a duty to use force to defend the child, not to kill the abortionist. In the second situation, Baker, an opponent of abortion, shoots the abortionist in the parking lot as he is approaching the building to do abortions a few minutes later.

One difference between the two cases is imminence. Able engages himself in the immediate defense of the child; he has no intent but to defend that child; he has no separate intent to harm or kill the abortionist. Recall that, in justified self-defense or defense of others, the intent cannot be to kill the aggressor, but rather to stop the attack. Baker, by contrast, is not in the heat of a physical struggle to save the child. He thinks, "I can get no closer than this. If I do not stop him he will go in there and murder babies. So I will shoot him in the head." His purpose or motive is to save children. But his intent in the act he performs that moment is to blow the baby killer's head off in order to achieve that purpose of saving children. Apart from the just war, capital punishment, or the justified rebellion, which derive from the authority of God, no one may ever intentionally kill anyone. Baker is intentionally doing an intrinsically evil thing to achieve a good end. He assumes the authority of God, to decide when that person will face the final judgment of God. His act cannot be justified. St. Thomas, quoting St. Augustine, said that "`a man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evildoer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him"' (Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 3).

Some may argue that killing the baby killer in the parking lot is defense of the child because that is as close as Baker could get. But if Baker may kill the abortionist when he is not actually performing an abortion, why does he have to limit himself to the parking lot? Why can he not conclude that the only practicable way he can get a clear shot at him is to shoot him on the golf course? Or at the video store? St. Thomas speaks of the justified defender as one who "repels force." See the Catechism, N. 2264. Unless we are to declare open season on abortionists, so as to justify their intentional execution by anybody so inclined wherever practicable, the right to defend the child must be restricted to the immediate performance of the abortion. Even then it is practically inconceivable that lethal force would have to be used.

The first of the above two examples is academic, because opponents of abortion, practically, do not find themselves in abortuary killing rooms. The issue is simply whether it is justifiable to kill abortionists, wherever and whenever an opportunity to do so presents itself.

The intentional killing of an abortionist could be justified only if it were incidental to a justified rebellion, which would itself be a just war, in which the abortionist was rightly regarded as a combatant and therefore a legitimate target. However, "Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution" (Catechism, N. 2243; emphasis in Catechism). These criteria do not justify the intentional killings of abortionists. Michael Griffin was not resisting an immediate, unjustified attack by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. By no stretch of the imagination can one reasonably conclude that we are in an insurrectionary situation in the United States today such as to justify his intentional killing of a person who was not then attacking anyone. A justified rebellion involves the assumption by private persons of the prerogative of the state to wage a just war. In a rebellion the war is waged against the state itself. In Roe v. Wade, and later cases, the Supreme Court, with the cooperation of Congress and the Executive Branch, has precipitated an unraveling of the American civic fabric. It cannot, however, be legitimately concluded that the situation has disintegrated so far beyond other means of correction that armed rebellion is justified in whole or in part.

Rebellion, incidentally, is not something to be lightly sanctioned. The just war waged by a government has the limiting feature that it can be waged only by the duly constituted public authority. A rebellion, by contrast, involves an assumption of all or part of that public authority by private persons who themselves decide that they are justified in taking over the power of the state in whole or in part. And if one can so decide, so can another. In Populorum Progressio, in 1967, Pope Paul VI said that "a revolutionary uprisingþsave where there is manifest long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country produces new injustices, throws more elements out of balance, and brings on new disasters. Real evil should not be fought against at the cost of greater miseries (Populorum Progressio, N. 31).

Already, within the span of a few hours, a standard line by some abortion supporters/providers has become, "Those who call abortion murder are implicitly or indirectly responsible for Tiller's death." It's a nifty bit of rhetoric, but one that is inherently flawed. It rests on the very shaky premise that if you believe someone has committed murder, you will be inclined to kill them if you have a chance. But both logic and experience say otherwise. The vast majority of people—even those with intense emotions about the matter—seek justice through lawful means, even if those means are often frustrating and, in some cases, deeply flawed. The vast majority of Christians rightly recognize that murdering a murderer is not only a false solution, it is an evil one, as Dr. Rice explains very well in his essay. The statement, "Abortion is murder," is either objectively true or false; how someone chooses to act based on that statement can be either lawful or unlawful, good or evil.

(By the way, what of the matter of those liberals who have accused George W. Bush of being a murderer? Shouldn't they be considered hate-mongers who are potentially inciting acts of violence? Or what of those who say the Catholic Church is responsible for the death of thousands in Africa because it opposes the use of contraceptives?)

This disingenuous rhetoric of convenient blame is used because abortion supporters (oops, I mean reproductive justice advocates) know who it is resisting the mythology of a Brave New World built on contraceptives, abortion, euthanasia, fornication, and "gay marriage." And the best way to undermine and even destroy those folks is to portray them en masse as domestic terrorists, religious extremists, and lawless theocrats. Trying to portray everyone in the pro-life movement in such a way is aided greatly by the slaying of Tiller. The fact that the act was immediately condemned by numerous pro-life groups and leaders is either ignored or described as "hypocritical," as if it is somehow impossible to accurately describe abortion and then peacefully work to end it.

In the hours and days immediately following 9/11, a host of moderate Islamic groups loudly denounced the attacks, and Americans were assured by the media and the government that the horrific events had nothing to do with true Islam. What's that? You don't remember the many statements by moderate Islamic groups? Well, regardless, you surely remember being told—even by President Bush—that Islam is a religion of peace. Surely the same benefit of the doubt will be extended to pro-life groups, won't it? Won't it? No? Of course not. Such are the deep and difficult challenges facing those staring into the darkness of the culture of death.

You play by the rules and do the right thing the right way and yet you are portrayed as narrow-minded, violent, hateful religious nuts. So imagine what happens when a violent, hateful nut (apparently a "Christian" of some sort) murders an abortionist? Well, unfortunately, we don't have to imagine. Mark Shea laments, "In our present cultural climate, it is quite possible that the man who did this just murdered the pro-life movement." I'm not ready to go so far, but I understand where he is coming from.

Those people that equate abortion with murder are at least partially responsible for the death of Dr. Tiller and many like him. They might not have pulled the trigger or even knowingly approved of the act, but is it completely out of the question that if you scream about the slaughter of babies and the righteousness of your cause that someone might actually believe these things and feel it is the right thing to do? To shoot down the ‘murderers’? To commit violent acts against women choosing to terminate a pregnancy? And then afterwards, when they are made into martyrs in the anti-choice community, do you really believe it’s enough to put out a statement that condemns the ‘act of violence’? ...

That, my friends, is what is known as talking out of one’s ass. And you know what? I don’t believe them. Not for one minute.

Police are now saying the 51 year old suspect in the murder of Dr. Tiller, Scott Roeder, (FreeStateDem broke this) was an isolated individual, but I hope the media tears the case apart to be sure of that because if he is connected at all, then we need to demand that the domestic terrorist group he might be associated with is treated like any other group in this country that supports – either directly or indirectly – terrorists. And if the media doesn't, then I trust some of you will take the case on. :P

Freeze their assets, interrogate their leadership (sans torture, because that's not what we're about) and bring this person (or people) to justice.

WICHITA, Kan. – Late-term abortion doctor George Tiller, a prominent advocate for abortion rights wounded by a protester more than a decade ago, was shot and killed Sunday at a church in Wichita where he was serving as an usher and his wife was in the choir, his attorney said.

Tiller was shot during morning services at Reformation Lutheran Church, attorney Dan Monnat said. Police said a manhunt was under way for the shooter, who fled in a car registered to a Kansas City suburb nearly 200 miles away.

National anti-abortion groups had long focused on Tiller, whose Women's Health Care Services clinic is one of just three in the nation where abortions are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.

Abortion is evil. The murder of those who perform abortions is evil. Lawlessness and murder is never the answer, regardless of how serious the problem. This is truly sickening.

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life expressed his sadness after hearing of the killing of George Tiller this morning.

"At this point, we do not know the motives of this act, or who is behind it, whether an angry post- abortive man or woman, or a misguided activist, or an enemy within the abortion industry, or a political enemy frustrated with the way Tiller has escaped prosecution. We should not jump to conclusions or rush to judgment."

"But whatever the motives, we at Priests for Life continue to insist on a culture in which violence is never seen as the solution to any problem. Every life has to be protected, without regard to their age or views or actions."

Shaun Kenney, executive director of American Life League, explained that leaders within the pro-life movement "often discuss justice in connection with our mission to end the tragedy of abortion. Today, Dr. George Tiller's life ended in an act defying those principles.""With genuine sorrow, we reflect on today's events in prayer. Justice for all human beings includes the lives of those with whom we fundamentally disagree as well as the victims of abortion. We firmly hope the perpetrators of this act are apprehended, that the facts be made known, and that justice according to the law is preserved and dispensed," ALL spokesperson said.

Kansas's former Attorney General Phil Kline, an anti-abortion crusader who brought an unsuccessful prosecution against Tiller, denounced the murder this afternoon. "I am stunned by this lawless and violent act which must be condemned and should be met with the full force of law. We join in lifting prayer that God's grace and presence rest with Dr. Tiller's family and friends," he said in a statement through a spokesman.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

I wrote the following "Opening the Word" column for Pentecost Sunday, May 27, 2007, for Our Sunday Visitor:

In the Old Testament the feast of Pentecost (from the Greek word for “fiftieth”) was one of the three great pilgrimage festivals of Israel, a celebration of the spring harvest that took place fifty days after the offering of first fruits at Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For Christians, Pentecost marks the fruits and harvest of another sort. It is a celebration of a formative event in the history of the early Church—the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon the newly birthed Church and the first bold proclamation of the Gospel by Peter, the head apostle, among the Jews.

“The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost,” states the Catechism, “by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the ‘dispensation of the mystery’ the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, ‘until he comes.’” (CCC 1076). This outpouring of the Holy Spirit and manifestation of the Church are described in today’s reading from the Acts of the Apostles. A group of men and women who had been afraid and confused in the dark days following the Crucifixion of Jesus were transformed supernaturally into fearless and passionate evangelists, emboldened by the Helper without whom, Paul writes, “No one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord.’” (1 Cor 12:3).

United together in anticipation of the gift promised by the Lord, the apostles and disciples experienced a theophany, or visitation by God. The loud noise and fire is similar to what the Israelites experienced at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:16-18), while the sensation of strong, rushing wind is like preceding God’s visit to Elijah on the same mountain (1 Kings 19:11-12). Fire was a common element in Old Testament theophanies, such as the pillar of fire that led the Israelites through the desert (Ex 13:21-22). Particularly striking is the description found in Psalm 29: “The voice of the Lord strikes with fiery flame” (v 7). The outward signs seen and heard in the upper room fulfilled the prophecy of John of the Baptist, who declared that Jesus “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Lk 3:16). In this way the people of God are purified, empowered, and prepared to go forth and carry out the work begun by the Son of God.

The Christians first witnessed to Jews “from every nation” who either were visiting Jerusalem for the feast or who had moved there from other countries. This miraculous gift of tongues—being able to speak in a multitude of languages—is an undoing of the ancient curse of the Tower of Babel, when “the Lord confused the speech of all the world” (Gen 11:1-9) because of man’s disobedient attempt to create a perfect society without the aid of God. On Pentecost the one body of the society of the Church was created by the Holy Spirit, uniting Jews, Greeks, slaves, and free persons from every tongue and nation.

It has become common, as I’ve noted in previous columns, for some Christians to pit the Holy Spirit against “the Church,” as though the Third Person of the Trinity will only be hindered by structure and organization. But that is contrary to what Luke and Paul wrote about the early Church, which was not only animated by the Holy Spirit, but organized by Him as well. There is one body, Paul explained to the Christians at Corinth—a rather rowdy and disorganized group of believers—and that body, the Church, has been formed by baptism into Christ through the Holy Spirit. “What the soul is to the human body,” wrote St. Augustine, “the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church” (CCC 797). The Church is both charismatic and Catholic, a single body of many parts, united in and through the Holy Spirit. Drink deeply, then, of the one Spirit!

There are indications that Judge Sotomayor is more like the majority of
American Catholics: those who were raised in the faith and shaped by
its values, but who do not attend Mass regularly and are not
particularly active in religious life. Like many Americans, Judge
Sotomayor may be what religion scholars call a “cultural Catholic” — a
category that could say something about her political and social
attitudes.

We now have world figures such as Alain Juppé presuming to assert that "this Pope is becoming a real problem', and Catholic journals publishing articles lamenting that Benedict XVI stands "like a solitary monarch in a curia that has lost its bearings". Why? Yes, one can point to some real mismanagement of papal initiatives in the Vatican which do require urgent remedy. The handling of the Regensburg address and of the recent lifting of the excommunication from the SSPX bishops was unsatisfactory. The appointment of Fr Wagner as an auxiliary bishop in Austria may not have been wise (less unwise, though, than Pope John Paul II's 1986 appointment of Hans Hermann Groër to Vienna). And perhaps the Pope should have addressed the "condom question" in an extended discourse rather than in a brief reply on an aeroplane.

But these matters of management are not the root cause of the discontent. When Pope Benedict freed the older liturgical rites from legal restrictions in July 2007, one Catholic commentator stated that "this is the strongest indication so far that the theological conservatism of Cardinal Ratzinger... is still in place in the papacy of Benedict XVI". Until then it was hoped that it was not. "A secret liberal at heart he is not," they lamented.

Indeed. That much ought to have been clear from his seminal and apparently programmatic address of December 2005 in which he distinguished an acceptable "hermeneutic of reform in continuity" from the unacceptable "hermeneutic of rupture" espoused By many following the Second Vatican Council. What Cardinal Ratzinger had been arguing for years was proposed by the Pope.

If we understand this - that the Pope is concerned that all aspects of the Church's life are in (or, where necessary, are restored to) clear continuity with her Tradition, without excluding legitimate development that does not break from her past - we can see why he acted so decisively on the older liturgy, why he does not fear to re-assert the Church's unpopular but life-giving teaching on human sexuality, why he did not hesitate to show real paternal mercy to the SSPX bishops in the hope of reconciliation and why he does not shrink from substantial dialogue with other faiths, even when he may be misunderstood.

We also need to understand that the Pope has a pretty clear understanding of his role. As Cardinal Ratzinger he observed that "the Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy". Pope Benedict is prepared to suffer the price of misinterpretation and even ridicule in his battle against relativism. That's his job.

Dom Reid is a Benedictine monk of St. Michael's Abbey in Farnborough, England, and the author of The Organic

From my own personal point of view I should like to give further particular emphasis to some of the criteria for liturgical renewal thus briefly indicated. I will begin with those last two main criteria. It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law; rather, he is the guardian of the authentic Tradition and, thereby, the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and he is thereby able to oppose those people who, for their part, want to do whatever comes into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The "rite", that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living Tradition in which the sphere using that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit that is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis, the handing-on of Tradition.

It is important, in this connection, to interpret the "substantial continuity" correctly. The author expressly warns us against the wrong path up which we might be led by a Neoscholastic sacramental theology that is disconnected from the living form of the Liturgy. On that basis, people might reduce the "substance" to the matter and form of the sacrament and say: Bread and wine are the matter of the sacrament; the words of institution are its form. Only these two things are really necessary; everything else is changeable. At this point modernists and traditionalists are in agreement: As long as the material gifts are there, and the words of institution are spoken, then everything else is freely disposable. Many priests today, unfortunately, act in accordance with this motto; and the theories of many liturgists are unfortunately moving in the same direction. They want to overcome the limits of the rite, as being something fixed and immovable, and construct the products of their fantasy, which are supposedly "pastoral", around this remnant, this core that has been spared and that is thus either relegated to the realm of magic or loses any meaning whatever. The Liturgical Movement had in fact been attempting to overcome this reductionism, the product of an abstract sacramental theology, and to teach us to understand the Liturgy as a living network of Tradition that had taken concrete form, that cannot be torn apart into little pieces but that has to be seen and experienced as a living whole. Anyone who, like me, was moved by this perception at the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for.

Your approach to religious history is so nakedly
materialist. For instance, you claim the Apostle Paul was a kind of
marketing guru who dropped the more demanding requirements of Judaism,
like circumcision and dietary restrictions, to attract more followers. Do the math. How many Christians are there today and how many Jews
are there? If his goal was to gain a large following, he seems to have
made the right tactical decision there.

Do you have to make Christianity sound like a pre-electronic Facebook? Institutions thrive when they can serve the interest of a bunch of
people, and there’s no reason to think the church is different. None of
this is to say Paul didn’t feel divinely inspired.

O.K., but where is the transcendence in your book? Well, I wind up arguing that the drift of history, however
materially driven, has enough moral direction to suggest that there’s
some larger purpose at work, and I guess you can call that
transcendence.

And:

Were you a churchgoer as a child? Southern Baptists don’t fool around. At age 8 or 9, I chose to go
to the front of the church in response to the altar call and accepted
Jesus as my savior.

When did you begin to doubt? I think it was roughly sophomore year in high school. I
encountered the theory of evolution, and my parents were creationists.
There was a clash. They brought a Baptist minister over to the house to
try to convince me that evolution hadn’t happened. He was not entirely
successful, I would say.

That sure sounds familiar. The particular fundamentalist Bible chapel I was raised in didn't really do "altar calls," but I was part of several at summer Bible camp and other outings. (Even as a 12-year-old I thought they were emotionally manipulative and I did my best to avoid participation.) I also watched several anti-evolution videos in high school and heard plenty of anti-evolution talks/sermons. I eventually rejected "Creationism" (that is, the notion that God created the earth 6,000 years ago because the Bible "says so")—and became Catholic. Because, in the end, being a materialist with a vague, Hegelian-lite notion of transcendence isn't satisfying or convincing on any level or in any way. Still, although Wright might not be entirely right, I kind of like his sense of humor.

Specifically, at Mount Athos, the legendary mountain in northern Greece that is home to twenty Orthodox monasteries. Sandro Magister of Chiesa visited there in 1997 and has re-posted a piece he wrote about his experience:

The church itself is highly evocative: It's in the form of a Greek
cross, like all of the other churches on Athos, admirably frescoed by
Macedonian masters of the 14th century, and with an iconostasis
brilliantly radiant with gold and icons. But it's the chant that gives
life to everything: harmonic chant, masculine, without instruments,
that flows uninterruptedly even for seven, ten hours at a time. The
greater the feast, the longer it lasts into the night, chant now
robust, now whispered, like the tide that ebbs and flows.

There
are two lead choirs: bunches of monks gathered in columns around the
lectern of each transept, with the choirmaster who intones the strophe
and the choir that catches the tune and makes it blossom in melodies
and chords. And when the choirmaster moves from the first to the second
choir and crosses the nave with quick steps, his minutely pleated
lightweight cloak billows in the form of two majestic wings. He seems
to fly, like the notes.

And then there are the lights. There
is electricity in the monastery, but not in the church. Here the only
lights are fire: myriads of little flames whose lighting and
extinguishing and motion is also a part of the rite. In every
catholikon on Athos an immense chandelier in the form of a royal crown
hangs from the central cupola, and has a circumference equal to that of
the cupola itself. The crown is of copper, of bronze, of shining brass;
it alternates candles and icons; it carries giant suspended eggs, which
are a symbol of the Resurrection. It hangs very low, almost skimming
the floor, directly in front of the iconostasis that marks off the holy
of holies. Other magnificent golden chandeliers hang from the
transepts' vaults.

And there's the moment in solemn liturgies
when all the candles are lit: those in the chandeliers and in the
central corona; and then the first are made to swing widely, while the
great corona is spun on its axis. The dance of lights lasts at least an
hour, until little by little it dies down. The glow of the thousand
little flames, the shining of the gold, the clinking of the metals, the
changing of colors of the icons, the resonant wave of the choir that
accompanies these rotating galaxies of stars like celestial spheres: It
all makes the true essence of Athos – its glimpse into the superhuman
mysteries – sparkle.

What Western, Catholic liturgies today
are able to initiate simple hearts into similar mysteries and to
inflame them with heavenly thoughts? Joseph Ratzinger, previously as
cardinal and now as pope, hits the mark when he points to the
vulgarization of the liturgy as the critical point for today's
Catholicism. On Athos the diagnosis is even more radical: the Western
churches, in trying to humanize God, make him disappear. "Our God is
not the God of Western scholasticism," the igoumenos of the Gregoríos
monastery on Athos moralizes. "A God who doesn't deify man can't have
any appeal, whether he exists or not. A large part of the reasons
behind the wave of atheism in the West are found in this functional,
incidental Christianity."

Vassilios, igoumenos of Ivíron,
another of the monasteries, echoes the sentiment: "In the West, action
rules; they ask us how we can stay here for so many hours in church
without doing anything. I reply: What does the embryo in the maternal
womb do? Nothing, but since it is in its mother's womb it develops and
grows. So it is with the monk. He preserves the holy space in which he
finds himself and he is preserved, molded by this same space. The
miracle is here: We are entering into paradise, here and now. We are in
the heart of the communion of saints."

The quote in that final paragraph is wonderful. The comment about the Western churches can, of course, be questioned in several ways (beginning with, "What 'western churches' are we talking about?"), but shouldn't be dismissed too quickly. Ratzinger/Benedict has made a similar critique of "functional,
incidental Christianity" a centerpiece of his pontificate.

However, the comment—"the Western
churches, in trying to humanize God, make him disappear"—is a bit confusing to me. Since the belief that God became man is central to Christianity, such a remark must be aimed at the various attempts to either reduce or eliminate the mystery of God, often taken to the point where "God" is simply identified as man's projection: "Those who have no desires have no gods either," claimed Feuerbach, "Gods are mens wishes in corporeal form" (quoted by de Lubac in The Drama of Atheist Humanism). Another serious problem, obviously, is the attempt to make Jesus Christ only human, denying his divinity. Neither of those issues are matters of "Western scholasticism," although it can be argued that a philosophical lineage extends from the nominalism of Ockham down to the metaphysics of Hegel and Kant, and then on to the atheism/anti-theism of Marx and Nietzsche.

The comment is most likely a reflection of the long-standing tensions between Eastern and Western Christianity, tensions that have, unfortunately, often led to polemics. But the most famous of the Western scholastics, St. Thomas Aquinas, was hardly a stranger to the doctrine of deification, or theosis, stating, "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods"—a quote that is highlighted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (par. 460). A.N. Williams has written an entire book, The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford, 1999), about this issue; St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly stated the book "could prove to be a major step in overcoming misunderstanding
between East and West..." (Unfortunately, academic books that cost $80-$125 don't often have large audiences.) I'm convinced that the doctrine of theosis/deification is a necessary and invaluable point of ecumenical discussion and consideration, and the more that Catholics learn about it, the better. After all, it is an essential part of Catholic soteriology. And a great place to start is Deification and Grace (Sapientia, 2007), by Daniel A. Keating, who teaches theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit.

Foreword to The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence
For Her Vindication by Régine
Pernoud | Katherine Anne Porter

In the many hundreds of books in French about the condemnation and retrial of
Joan of Arc, the authors invariably base their criticism of the first trial on
the evidence given by witnesses in the second. None of these books has been
translated into English. The French seem to write them for each other, or
perhaps even at this late day the English reader does not enjoy seeing his
nation put so soundly and irreparably in the poorest light of its history.
Whatever the reason, this is the first book based firmly on the retrial of Joan
of Arc to be translated into English, and the whole tremendous history is told
again, this time by her childhood playmates and relatives, her royal and noble
friends, her confessor, her valet, her squires and heralds, and her fellow
soldiers. There are a few of the old enemies of the first court still in Rouen,
but they can do her no more harm: and indeed their presence here perhaps lends
even a more powerful authenticity to this story than if we heard only from her
friends.

It is indeed a beautiful book, well translated, with the speed and symmetry and
direction of the life it celebrates; and besides its merit as a work of
scholarship, there is warmth and sanity in it, often absent from books about
Joan of Arc, who inspires strange fervors and theories. In my small collection,
out of the hundreds, there is one that proves to the hilt that Joan was a
Catharist, that outcropping of ancient Manichaeism in medieval Provence;
another, that she and her fellow captain, Gilles de Laval, Sire de Rais, were
sorcerers, adept in Black Magic. The fact that Joan's first trial has been
exposed in its falseness over and over has no effect on these infatuated minds;
nor that Gilles de Rais, though proved a man of bad morals, still was tried and
condemned by a court as corrupt as that which condemned Joan. Still a third
book has been published to prove that Joan was a by-blow of the blood royal,
and that the "secret" she whispered to the Dauphin in proof of her
mission was that she was his half-sister, bastard daughter of his father King
Charles VI, the virgin sent to save France after France had been betrayed by a
woman.

It has become commonplace for the president's Catholic supporters to
applaud his plan to "reduce abortions" (a phrase he doesn't use) often
tying that to his supposed support of the Pregnant Women Support Act.

The
myth of the president's support for PWSA is now commonplace in the
media and even the generally meticulous John Allen at NCR misreported
the president's support of the bill. Commenting on L'Osservatore Romano's "first 100 days" editorial, Allen wrote that the author

also
argued that Obama's support for the "Pregnant Women Support Act"
represents a "rebalancing" of his abortion policies "in support of
maternity."

L'Osservatore did not say
the president supported PWSA and I pointed that out to Allen. He went
back to the Italian and confirmed I was correct. No correction was ever
made to the article however. (I'm not including Allen among those lying
for the president. He's simply an example of how widespread the myth
has become.)

has not endorsed it in its current incarnation and neither did he
support it as a Senator when it had been introduced in previous
sessions. The L'Osservatore article
also nowhere lauds the president for seeking to reduce abortions.
Indeed, it would be wonderful if the president did endorse the Pregnant
Women Support Act, as it would certainly bolster the bill's currently
thin support.

For its own part, L'Osservatore demonstrates a
certain ignorance of the American political scene when it falsely
reports that the Act was "designed by the Democratic party." The act
was in fact created by the Democrats for Life of America which no informed observer would confuse with the Democratic Party.

The
act has been introduced in three congressional sessions by pro-life
Democrat Lincoln Davis with Rep. Chris Smith as lead Republican
co-sponsor. In each session it attracted a small group of co-sponsors
from both parties. Regrettably, major support for the bill has not
materialized from either party. There are currently 26 cosponsors in
the House, while a similar sounding but altogether awful bill by
extreme pro-abort Rep. Louise Slaughter has 137 co-sponsors in the
House. This is why Cardinal Rigali sent a letter to members of Congress
seeking additional co-sponsors for the Pregnant Women Support Act.

Smith later, in two posts, compared the Pregnant Women Support Act and the Prevention First Act. The latter's primary sponsor is Harry Reid (D-NV); it was co-sponsored by 34 senators, including then-Senator Obama. Smith reports that it is "supported by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Rights Action League." The Prevention First Act does not contain "a single word about economic assistance or support to women in crisis pregnancies."

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia and Chairman of the USCCB's Committee for Pro-Life Activities wrote, in a May 15th letter (PDF format) to senators:

The Pregnant Women Support Act reaches out to women with a helping hand when they are most vulnerable, and most engaged in making a decision about life or death for their unborn children. It provides an authentic common ground, an approach that people can embrace regardless of their position on other issues. For example, it does not raise the entirely separate issue of seeking to reduce pregnancies through government promotion of contraceptives, which recently created so much controversy when it was inappropriately proposed for inclusion in an economic stimulus package. That issue raises serious questions regarding priorities in health care as well as the conscience rights of patients and health care providers, which demand a serious debate of their own. In any case, low-income women already have guaranteed coverage for family planning through Medicaid, with the Federal government assuring States that it will pay 90% of this coverage - yet it is precisely among these women that abortion rates are highest.

That authentic common ground is, as Robert George pointed out in his debate yesterday with Douglas Kmiec, quite different from the common ground espoused by President Obama:

Two days after the meeting, the President spoke at Notre Dame, and he
chose his words carefully. In speaking of common ground, he did not
propose that we reduce the number of abortions, but rather [and I
quote] “the number of women seeking abortions.” Get it? The President
and his administration will not join us on the common ground of
discouraging women from having abortions or even in encouraging them to
choose childbirth over abortion. The proposed common ground is the
reduction of unwanted pregnancies—not discouraging those in “need” of
abortion from having them. The idea that the interests of a child who
might be vulnerable to the violence of abortion should be taken into
account, even in discouraging women from resorting to abortion or
encouraging alternatives to abortion, is simply off the table.

The President and the people he has placed in charge of this issue,
such as Melody Barnes, have a deep ideological commitment to the idea
that there is nothing actually wrong with abortion, because the child
in the womb simply has no rights. This commitment explains the policy
positions President Obama has consistently taken since he entered the
Illinois legislature. It crucially shapes and profoundly limits what he
and those associated with him regard as the “common ground” on which he
is willing to work with pro-lifers. And it explains why he and they
reject what we, as pro-lifers, propose as common ground.

The movie, which I saw this past weekend, poses the question that
science and religion may be able to join forces, bridge the gap, and
come full circle together - a concept I've been pondering for three
decades.

In the movie, the scientific properties of "anti-matter"
are also labeled as the "God element," even though it's criminally used
as a potential weapon of mass destruction against religion -
Catholicism namely - and the Vatican City.

Or, on the other hand, will science and religion forever remain as
polar opposites, each heading in opposite directions with opposing
purposes, agendas, and properties? Something to think about on this
back-to-work Tuesday, whether you're among the faithful or not.

Those deep thoughts from Jerry Davich, the metro columnist for the Post-Tribune newspaper (Chicago). In my review I had remarked that "my biggest concern with Angels & Demons has not been with what it proposes as much as with what it reinforces, namely, the convenient but thoroughly false notion that the Catholic Church is an enemy—even a violent, bloody one—of science and reason." Davich's comment hangs on that misconception, but one of Davich's readers provides a more ripe example of a confident assertion based on complete nonsense and delivered with assured condescension:

The problem is that theists require that you acccept their answer
based merely on their word while actively ignoring any evidence that
may be presented to you. The beauty and power of science is that it
allows people to "not fool themselves". I can make any claim I want
about science or the natural world for that matter. You don't need to
take my word for it, you can perform the experiment yourself. Note that
"doubt" in the christian religion is one of the worst sins one can
commit. On the other hand, science actively encourages doubt and holds
it in high regard.

The track records of religion and science speak for themselves.
Science has consistently marched forward since its conception,
delivering real tangible gains in the quality of life. The computer
that you're reading on, ample food, clean water, and modern medicine
are all tribute to the power of science. Since antiquity, religion has
opposed science, from murdering Copernicus to opposing the teaching of
evolution. The war between science and religion has been largely
one-sided since the dark ages, as science has steadily progressed. On
the other hand, while the war is being won, battles are being lost,
particularly in the Middle East and Texas.

Or, as the character Robert Langdon puts it succinctly in Dan Brown's novel, “[o]utspoken scientists like Copernicus . . . [were] murdered by the Church for revealing scientific truths. Religion has always persecuted science.” That is the standard blueprint for "religion and science" most people are force fed from the time they are sent off to the public propaganda chambers at the age of five (or younger); they hear it repeatedly and so assume it must be true. And then it is reinforced by stupid novels, vapid television shows, and laughable movies. And...

But you probably know all of this. So what can be done? One thing (among others) is to be familiar with some of the basic historical facts and issues. A good starting point, I think, is the just published book,Light and Shadows: Church History amid
Faith, Fact and Legend (Ignatius Press), by Fr. Walter Brandmüller, who is president of the Pontifical Committee for
Historical Sciences and who taught Church
history at the University of Augsburg, Germany, for 27 years. Topics addressed in the book include the papacy, the roots and formation of Europe, historical facts and the Gospels, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Reformation, the Baroque period, the Enlightenment, Vatican II, and more. Read part of the introduction on Ignatius Insight.

UPDATE: Mr. Read's appearance on EWTN tonight was postponed due to flight delays.

A quick reminder that Piers Paul Read will be on EWTN's "The World Over" with Raymond Arroyo, which airs tonight at 8:00 p.m. EST (other guests include Mary Ann Glendon and Fr. Robert Sirico, so it should be an excellent show).

Also, Frank Wilson, long-time (and now retired) book review editor for The Philadelphia Inquirer, has already written a review of Read's novel, The Death of a Pope, but has also posted some e-mail correspondence he's had recently with the author. Among other things, they discuss the complexity of the novel's characters:

FW: Among
the many things I found interesting about the book is how attractive
and persuasive Juan Uriarte is. This reminded me of how good Aquinas is
at presenting the arguments of those he does not in fact agree with. To
do this you have to enter deeply - and sympathetically - into the
other's position.

On the other hand, those in the novel who
prove to be the instruments of God's providence and thwart Uriarte's
scheme - Luke Scott and Monsignor Perez - display nothing of Uriarte's
charisma or subtlety.

I found this rather heartening, since many
people seem to be always on the lookout for some hero to do God's work,
whereas God is fully capable of doing His own work using the people who
come to hand, as it were.

So one
question, obviously, is this: You must have gone into the idea of of
the social gospel rather deeply - and sympathetically. And yet remain
or have come to be suspicious of it. Would you care to explain?

PPR:
When I was a student at Cambridge I was a zealous Liberationist -
partly influenced by some very radical Dominicans at the Cambridge
Blackfriars. There was a Catholic Liberationist review called Slant.
The view was that you could only help the poor in the Third world with
social revolution. I changed my views in later years because 1) I lived
for a while in Berlin and saw socialism in practice on the eastern side
of the wall 2) studied more history and came to understand that
revolutionaries usually turn out to be self-serving and 3) deepened my
understanding of the Catholic faith, realising that it was more about
saving souls than social welfare. I also went out to Salvador on a
journalistic project and heard the criticism of the FMLN and the
Jesuits from the 'traditional' clergy there - views which never got
through to the Catholic journals in Britain.

But
certainly, Uriarte represents to some extent my youthful self and the
novel is a debate between the older and one hopes wiser author and his
that youthful self.

Michael Waldstein, Ph.D., the Max Seckler Professor of Theology at Ave Maria University and translator of John Paul II's Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, has penned a piece for Inside Catholic defending Christopher West's work. He begins:

I know that David Schindler is a careful scholar, but I was surprised and taken aback by his recent blanket negative statement
about Christopher West in reaction to West's Nightline interview. He
cites a few anecdotes, quotes some snippets of texts, recalls some
discussions he had with West in the past, and then makes a number of
sweeping, massive accusations against West's work as a whole. His West is not the Christopher West I know from studying West's commentary on the Theology of the Body.

Because
of my close work with West during the writing of the new translation of
John Paul II's original work, I know he has a deep and faithful
understanding of the late pope. West's work is uncompromisingly in line
with the Church's faith. Perhaps
most striking is his humility in approaching the Theology of the Body
and the great desire he has to reach broken humanity with this
liberating message.

To answer all of Schindler's objections would require a response too
lengthy for the moment; the fact that he cites no texts from West's
work on which to base his four main objections also makes a response
difficult.

Yesterday, Robert P. George and Douglas W. Kmiec took part in a debate, moderated by Mary Ann Glendon and held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., titled, "The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by 'Pro-Life" Citizens?" The debate was sponsored by the Catholic University of America's Columbus Law School.

Trust This Church? | Fr. Walter Brandmüller | From the Introduction to Light and Shadows: Church History amid
Faith, Fact and Legend
Occasionally the Church is compared with Noah's ark: only his sons and
daughters, only those animals that Noah took with him into the ark were saved
from the great flood. In a similar way, the Church is supposed to be man's only
rescue from the final catastrophe.

When discussion turns to the Last Things, to man's eternal fate, then the
question assumes the utmost urgency: To whom can he entrust his eternal fate
and himself? What can he rely on in life and death? Now, since the Church makes
the exclusive claim to be the saving ark, this claim must be so solidly
established that it does not mean a leap into uncertainty when man puts his
trust in this ark.

Questions About Questions

To many of our contemporaries, such trust in the Church appears to be nothing
less than an unreasonable demand upon sound common sense. Aren't there
countless facts (the objection goes) that demolish the credibility of the
Church?
Many people have read the numerous books or seen the
television programs that deal with the subject of the Qumran community and seem
to offer proof that the beginnings of Jesus of Nazareth and of Christianity
ought to be portrayed in a completely different way from what is recorded in
the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Many have also seen the
earthenware receptacle containing human remains that was found in Jerusalem, on
which the names Joseph, Mary and Jesus were inscribed. Isn't this compelling
evidence that Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead and that Mary was not
taken body and soul into heaven? With that, however, the foundations of the
Christian faith crumble into dust and ashes! Many people today suspect that
this is so.

Sotomayor and Diaz may truly be the new face of the Catholic Church in
America, and Obama wisely wants them to contribute to the image and
reality of his administration.

Actually, the second half of that statement is undoubtedly true. It's the first part that is questionable. Come to think of it, the argument could be soundly made that Sotomayor and Diaz are the same old faces of "progressive" and "modern" Catholicism.

From what I've read, Sotomayor attended Catholic schools but now only "attends church for family celebrations and other important events". (Does weekly Mass qualify as an "important event"?) The evidence, however sketchy, points to a lapsed Catholic whose does not see the need to attend Mass every week. Well, that's not "new"; sadly, there are a lot of Catholics out there who only show up for church once in a great while. Is Fr. Reese suggesting we have more Catholics who don't practice the Catholic faith on a regular basis?

Miguel H. Diaz, in case you haven't heard, is a Cuban-American theologian, Hispanic Roman Catholic theologian, a Latino ("This Latino IS Catholic" shouts TIME magazine—sensing a theme yet?) and a liberation theologian who is committed "to moving beyond the politics of fear to the politics of hope." As part of that commitment, he advised the Obama presidential campaign, donated $1,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, and was one of several Catholic academics (Fr. Reese was another, of course) who publicly supported Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. His books are praised by leading liberation and feminist theologians, which indicates he may well be on the cutting edge of the 1970s and '80s. But, more seriously, the constant emphasis on ethnicity/ethnic identity is common within many strains of liberation theology. You might recall that a certain current President's former pastor of twenty years was heavily influenced by Rev. James Cone, the founder of black liberation theology. Coincidental? Doubtful.

Cardinal Ratzinger, in The Ratzinger Report (Ignatius Press, 1985) noted that "Liberation theology is a phenomenon with an extraordinary number of layers..." He also stated:

Initially we said that liberation theology intends to supply a new total interpretation of the Christian reality; it explains Christianity as a praxis of liberation and sees itself as the guide to this praxis. However, since in its view all reality is political, liberation is also a political concept and the guide to liberation must he a guide to political action:

"Nothing lies outside ... political commitment. Everything has a political color." A theology that is not "practical"; i.e., not essentially political, is regarded as "idealistic" and thus as lacking in reality, or else it is condemned as a vehicle for the oppressors' maintenance of power.

A theologian who has learned his theology in the classical tradition and has accepted its spiritual challenge will find it hard to realize that an attempt is being made, in all seriousness, to recast the whole Christian reality in the categories of politico-social liberation praxis. This is all the more difficult because many liberation theologians continue to use a great deal of the Church's classical ascetical and dogmatic language while changing its signification. As a result, the reader or listener who is operating from a different background can gain the impression that everything is the same as before, apart from the addition of a few somewhat unpalatable statements, which, given so much spirituality, can scarcely be all that dangerous.

The very radicality of liberation theology means that its seriousness is often underestimated, since it does not fit into any of the accepted categories of heresy; its fundamental concern cannot be detected by the existing range of standard questions.

In other words, liberation theologians sometimes use traditional, common language to subvert the actual, time-honored meaning of that language; they tend to see everything through the prism of politics and political action; their exact intentions and means of pursuing its goals are often slippery and difficult to pin down. Whether or not that is a fair assessment of Dr. Diaz's beliefs or methods, I have no idea (John Allen, Jr., says it is not, for what it's worth. Fr. Z critiques). But it sure sounds like a decent description of the man who nominated him to be ambassador to the Vatican.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

A popular Miami priest and media personality known as ''Father Oprah''
has left the Catholic Church and joined the Episcopal Church after he
was photographed cavorting on the beach with his girlfriend.

The Rev. Alberto Cutie
(KOO'-tee-ay) was removed from his Miami Beach church after photos of
him kissing and embracing a woman appeared in the pages of a
Spanish-language magazine earlier this month.

He was received
into Episcopal Church in a ceremony Thursday at Trinity Cathedral. He
must complete other requirements before serving as an Episcopal priest.

Cutie
spoke briefly at a press conference and read a statement in English and
Spanish. He quoted from the book of Psalms and said, ''More than ever,
I'm assured that God is love.''

He continued, ''I have searched my soul and sought God's guidance for a long time.''

Before walking away without answering questions, Cutie thanked supporters and asked the media to respect his privacy.

Well, I think we all know this means, don't you? Yep, that's right: the Catholic Church desperately needs to revisit its rigid, dogmatic refusal to let Catholics be both Catholic and Episcopalian.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Now, some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease
that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade,
the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision. In a letter, Nancy Keenan,
president of Naral Pro-Choice America, urged supporters to press
senators to demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views on privacy
rights before any confirmation vote.

“Discussion about Roe v.
Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,” Ms. Keenan
wrote. “As you know, choice hangs in the balance on the Supreme Court
as the last two major choice-related cases were decided by a 5-to-4
margin.”

I was under the impression that only certain nasty, mean-spirited, ultra-partisan, right-wing, anti-abortion Republicans were going to "demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views" on matters relating to abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the super-sacred "right to privacy."

Furthermore, I recall reading and hearing again and again and again (multiplied a bazillion times over), often from certain Catholics, that trying to overturn Roe v. Wade is pointless, a waste of time, and even stupid. Apparently Ms. Keenan hasn't received that memo yet (I suspect she might have had a hand in drafting it.)

Could Sotomayer be the "anti-Souter"? Please, let's not get carried away. And let's not forget to ask why NARAL and others in the pro-baby-killing industry are so concerned about protecting Roe v. Wade when everyone knows it isn't going to be overturned any time soon.

Meanwhile, I'm further confused that while most reports have indicated its unclear whether or not Sotomayor is a practicing Catholic, Doug Kmiec seems certain she is:

I’m certain this is the way she sees her faith, that life means not
just the moment of conception, not just the moment of death, but every
moment in between. And we have obligations to each other . . . . She
sees all of the aspects of the Catholic faith. . . . The Catholic faith
has become so identified with a single issue in this country in the
last two decades, that even Catholics forget sometimes the fullness of
their faith.

The fact that Judge Sotomayor has a fuller understanding of the
social obligations of the Catholic church, well, I don’t think means
she’s going to be looking for opportunities to write those obligations
into the law. But I do think it’s a set of qualities that go into the
package that we call discernment, that we call empathy. Someone who
recognizes that the law can have pretty serious economic and social
consequences and that those consequences need to be fully understood as
the law is interpreted.

So, not only is Sotomayor a practicing Catholic, she is—according to Kmiec—a Catholic with a "fuller understanding of the
social obligations of the Catholic church." Impressive. Why, I almost expect her to quote from Evangelium Vitae (in Latin!) during her confirmation hearings. But, just to be clear, my criticisms are not aimed at Sotomayor, but at Kmiec, whose track record on these matters and others is, well, embarrassing and worse.

... Miguel H. Diaz, Ph.D. Diaz "serves on the graduate faculty of the School of Theology • Seminary
of Saint John’s University and undergraduate faculty of the Department
of Theology at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s
University, has been nominated as the United States Ambassador to the
Holy See (Vatican)."

would be the first Hispanic to serve as ambassador to the Vatican since
the United States and the Holy See established full diplomatic ties in
1984. Diaz was born in Havana.

<snip>

Reached at his home Wednesday, Diaz read a brief statement
expressing gratitude for the opportunity and saying, "I wish to be a
diplomatic bridge between our nation and the Holy See, and if confirmed
by the U.S. Senate, I will continue the work of my predecessors and
build on 25 years of excellent relations with the Holy See."

He declined to answer questions about his positions on issues, saying it would be inappropriate before his confirmation hearing.

One
potential point of conflict is Diaz's support for the nomination of
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic whose
abortion rights record angered conservative Catholics. Diaz was among
26 Catholic leaders and scholars who signed a statement hailing
Sebelius as "a woman of deep faith" and citing her a record on
immigration, education, health care and reducing abortion rates in
Kansas.

Mark Silk of Spiritual-Politics.org notes Diaz "served on Obama's Catholic Advisory Board during the campaign, which
puts him firmly in the Kmiec camp. This strikes me as the shrewdest of
moves, and one that will cause no end of teeth-grinding on the Catholic
right, including the likes of Archbishop Burke. But we await learned
commentary from his co-religionists." Silk adds: "Turns out Diaz is a consultant to Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Big win for social-justice, common-ground Catholics." Sure enough.

Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporter remarks, "Diaz is a pro-life Democrat so his mere presence at the Vatican will
disprove the contention of some conservatives that there is no such
thing as a pro-life [sic] Catholic" (he means "pro-life Democrat"). Or, it could be what is commonly known as "an exception that proves the rule."

Christopher West’s interview on ABC’s Nightline has sparked some
terrific discussion on the Internet. An impressive amount of the
interaction is intelligent and illuminating, even some of that which is
seriously wrong. One of the better responses is that by Jimmy Akin of
Catholic Answers and the follow-up comments to his blog.

Here, I want to offer a brief, partial, response to Prof. David
Schindler’s assessment of West’s work. The fact that Nightline got a
lot wrong about West’s work is not surprising. In fact, it is
surprising how much it got right. Those of us who work with the media
know that potential martyrdom awaits us at the hands of an editor. West
has likely been suffering a kind of crucifixion over the past week.
What is puzzling is that an influential scholar chose this moment to
issue a sweeping, negative critique of West in such a public forum. I
have great respect for the work and thought of Schindler and realize
that it must be difficult to be on the receiving end of criticisms of
the work of one of their most high profile graduates. I wish, however,
he had found another occasion to express his reservations about West’s
work.

I think we should be very careful in our evaluation of the work of
someone who is on the front lines and who is doing pioneer work.
Virtually every pioneering author and presenter has had severe
detractors in his own time. Some of them have been disciplined by the
Church and eventually exonerated. I would like to give examples and
mention names, but I don’t want to ignite a firestorm of "how can you
compare Christopher West to X, Y or Z?"!

<snip>

The fact that the dean of the John Paul II Institute in Washington D.C.
has issues with West’s approach should not discourage anyone from
reading West’s work or attending his lectures. Schindler has serious
disagreements with other reputable, orthodox theologians, including
professors on staff at the John Paul II Institute. West’s extensive
commentary on the Theology of the Body, Theology of the Body Explained,
was reviewed for the imprimatur for the Archdiocese of Boston by Prof.
May, a longtime colleague of Schindler at the John Paul II Institute,
who gave it a glowing endorsement. (I also reviewed and strongly
endorsed it.) Several times in his piece Schindler refers to West’s
“intention” to be orthodox which could imply that he has not
necessarily achieved orthodoxy. We should be clear that West’s works
have been given an imprimatur, an ecclesiastical judgment that a work
is completely theologically sound.

Read the entire response. Not surprisingly, Dr. Smith makes many excellent points. And I think she is correct in saying that the discussion about this controversy has been, on the whole, quite positive and helpful. Let's keep it that way, mindful of the challenges faced not just by Christopher West, but by every Catholic who seeks to shine the truth into the dark and murky corners of the world.

I should perhaps note I've not read any of West's books, but have listened to 2 or 3 of his tapes. Having read John Paul II's theology of the body (over ten years ago), I thought West did a fine job with the material, taking a rather daunting body of theological and philosophical work and presenting it within a popular format for an audience largely without much, if any, training in theology, philosophy, or the exegesis of Scripture. But I've simply not read or heard enough of West's materials to make much of an assessment, so I've followed this discussion with great interest.